Cornell University’s new architecture building designed by Rem Koolhaas’ Office of Metropolitan Architecture is a “disaster” says Cornell University architecture professor Jonathan Oschorn. “The code violations are egregious”, states Ochshorn. — businessofarchitecture.com
Photo by Theodore Ferringer
6 Comments
If it has so many code violations how was it allowed to be built in the first place?
I'm by no means a fan of over the top starchitecture, but I do think the codes in the USA - like the US construction industry - prefer to deal with off-the-shelf proprietary systems. Any custom work becomes tricky quite quickly, and as a result, you see a lot of generic solutions...or badly built structures.
This is a huge detriment to the design field as a whole...so lets not run around pushing codes as the end-all-be-all in all situations.
In places like NL or Germany you have very strict codes, but there is more interest between local authorities to find mutual solutions that support technological and creative solutions.
This is a general comment obviously.
I'm not a huge fan of Milstien Hall for other reasons, but if it doesn't function properly or puts people in danger, then the parties involved in the approvals of the design should be held accountable...and we all know LEED is mostly a racket anyway.
nicely said justavisual.
the speaker comes off as a man looking for proper reasons to support his dislike of a project and isn't quite getting there.
He's objecting to abstraction in Architecture?
I think this criticism is coming from a very nostalgic point of view.
This "Objective Critique" is a non-critique; after arguing for nearly 20 minutes that the building area is too great for the construction type (his primary claim), Mr. Oschorn then states that at the time the permit was issued the floor area did in-fact satisfy the NY state building code (in the US states rights rule, the IBC is only relevant in-so-far as the states adopt it). As for the leaking, is he certain that the building envelope was poorly designed (the fault of the Architect) or could it perhaps have been poorly executed (the fault of the GC). OMA and the local architect should file a deformation suit against the cranky professor. These are very serious charges and it is highly irresponsible and highly unethical to level them while simultaneously admitting that what was done was done within the scope of the then current legal framework.
This is a much needed criticism of designing purely schematically or "formally" to use academic jargon, while leaving the actual techtonic realities and subsequent construction detailing to others, and I commend the podcaster for his straight forward approach. He is attacking the very foundation of many "theoretical" schools, which is most of them unfortunatly, by "defamiliarizing" students of all they known about architecture and submerging them into "extremely conceptual and abstract" problems right from the start. He points out that "abstraction" has separated itself from the realities of construction since modernism, ie, wall and roof. In other words, creating problems simply for the sake of design philosophy ( which he equates to style).
This interview shows the schism between academic and non-academic architectural appreciation, in general. How academia follows one set of rules and the general puclic tends to follow another. Mind you, this is intentional in academia, but it seems to get under this guys skin, and you can hear it riddled through out the interview. While he slams the building on functional and code issues, he is really slamming "heroic" and "conceptual" nature of this architecture which sacrifices good construction techniques and aesthetic compatability with it's context.
He goes to great lengths to emphasizes how his criticism isn't about aesthetics at all, yet explicitly criticises it becasue of its "agressive" stance, both in site and in it's conjunction with the historic context. Then as a nod to financial realities, he acknowledges that it has generated "buzz" which helps the schools bottom line, and I'm sure "cool" quotient. I still can't get enough of SMLXL. What a stinging commentary on our society!
And he dosen't need a "proper" reason to dislike this building because if he dosen't like the building, that's reason enough, right? Are we (the public) allowed to have feelings about architecture without a "proper' education? Afterall, he calls the building "interesting, amazing, and provovative", just not beautiful, which is the main reason people tend to give for liking places. And there's the disconect. Ultimatly, the functional and code issues he brings up, while correct, are a proxy for what seems to be his main objections to this building, which is that both aesthetic and functionally, it's a failure.
curious that this is posted as a 'business of architecture' presentation. oma operates in the rarefied air above the business most of us know. their ny architect partners would have been the ones responsible for the code-compliance issues which - it sounds like - were not compliance issues at the time of permitting anyway.
this is a provocation, a chance for this professor to get to air his dissatisfaction and a chance for a new web/blog presence to make a splash. i'd love to hear someone else from cornell weigh in on this 'disaster'. it seems we would have heard more about how horrible it is if this word were appropriate/applicable.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.